Matter of Butler v. Onondaga County Legislature
Decision Date | 20 April 2007 |
Docket Number | OP 06-03417. |
Citation | 833 N.Y.S.2d 829,2007 NY Slip Op 03514,39 A.D.3d 1271 |
Parties | In the Matter of JOHN M. BUTLER, Petitioner, v. ONONDAGA COUNTY LEGISLATURE, Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.
Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 seeking to annul respondent's determination to condemn a .4-acre parcel of petitioner's property along the Onondaga Creek shoreline. Petitioner contends, inter alia, that the proposed taking is not the least invasive alternative and involves more of petitioner's land than is necessary for the intended public use. "Our scope of review pursuant to EDPL 207 (C) is limited to whether the proceeding was in conformity with constitutional requirements, whether the proposed acquisition is within the statutory jurisdiction or authority of the condemnor, whether the condemnor's determination and findings were made in accordance with the procedures set forth in EDPL article 2 and ECL article 8, and whether a proposed use, benefit or purpose will be served by the proposed acquisition" (Matter of Pfohl v Village of Sylvan Beach, 26 AD3d 820, 820 [2006]; see Matter of City of New York [Grand Lafayette Props. LLC], 6 NY3d 540, 546 [2006]; Matter of Waldo's, Inc. v Village of Johnson City, 74 NY2d 718, 720 [1989]; Matter of Broadway Schenectady Entertainment v County of Schenectady, 288 AD2d 672, 672-673 [2001]). The burden is on the party challenging the condemnation to establish that the determination "was without foundation and baseless" (Matter of Rafferty v Town of Colonie, 300 AD2d 719, 721 [2002]; see Broadway Schenectady Entertainment, 288 AD2d at 673). Thus, "[i]f an adequate basis for a determination is shown and the objector cannot show that the determination was without foundation, the [condemnor's] determination should be confirmed" (Waldo's, Inc., 74 NY2d at 720 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Stankevich v Town of Southold, 29 AD3d 810, 811 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 717 [2006]; Matter of Kaufmann's Carousel v City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 301 AD2d 292, 299 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 508 [2003]).
We conclude that petitioner has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that the determination is without foundation and baseless. We further conclude that petition...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bowers Dev., Inc. v. Oneida Cnty. Indus. Dev. Agency
...the condemnation to establish that the determination was without foundation and baseless" ( Matter of Butler v. Onondaga County Legislature , 39 A.D.3d 1271, 1271, 833 N.Y.S.2d 829 [4th Dept. 2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of GM Components Holdings, LLC v. Town of Lock......
-
In the Matter of Arbern Sutphin Properties Llc v. City of N.Y.
...( see Matter of Aspen Cr. Estates, Ltd. v. Town of Brookhaven, 47 A.D.3d at 278, 848 N.Y.S.2d 214; Matter of Butler v. Onondaga County Legislature, 39 A.D.3d 1271, 833 N.Y.S.2d 829; Matter of Stankevich v. Town of Southold, 29 A.D.3d 810, 815 N.Y.S.2d 225; Matter of Gyrodyne Co. of Am., Inc......
-
Bowers Dev. v. Oneida Cnty. Indus. Dev. Agency
...confirmed" (Matter of Waldo's, Inc. v Village of Johnson City, 74 N.Y.2d 718, 720 [1989] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Butler, 39 A.D.3d at 1271-1272). the sole basis upon which the majority rests its decision to annul OCIDA's determination-and thereby intervenes into what is effe......
-
GM Components Holdings, LLC v. Town of Lockport Indus. Dev. Agency
...the determination was without foundation, the [condemnor's] determination should be confirmed’ ” ( Matter of Butler v. Onondaga County Legislature, 39 A.D.3d 1271, 1271–1272, 833 N.Y.S.2d 829). Addressing first the public use factor, we note that, in support of its determination authorizing......